Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreWilliam Carey University, facing a financial crisis, entered into an MoU handing over its management to Orion Education Trust. The respondent is the Chairman of Orion. A cheque issued in connection with this arrangement was dishonoured, and a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the respondent personally, without making the Trust itself an accused. The Meghalaya High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that since the Trust was not made a party, the Chairman could not be held vicariously liable.
The Supreme Court examined whether a complaint under the NI Act is maintainable against the Chairman/a Trustee of a Trust when the Trust itself has not been arraigned as an accused. Relying on its earlier rulings in SMS Pharmaceuticals and K.K. Ahuja, the Court reiterated that a person who, by virtue of holding an office such as Chairman or signatory of the cheque, is shown to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business, can be held liable under Section 141 of the NI Act even without elaborate averments about day-to-day control. The Court held that a Trust's distinct legal character does not create a blanket immunity requiring the Trust to be separately arraigned before its Chairman can be prosecuted. It set aside the High Court's quashing order and restored the criminal complaint to the trial court for proceedings to continue, while flagging (without deciding) a related legal question pending before a larger bench in another case.
A signatory or the head of an unincorporated body such as a Trust cannot escape a cheque-bounce prosecution merely by arguing that the Trust itself was not made an accused; responsibility for issuing the cheque and control over the underlying transaction can be enough to fix personal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
